MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386570988 · doi:10.5539/ijel.v13n5p45

Gender Differences in the Use of Emojis Among Genders

2023· article· en· W4386570988 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Abeer M. Alburaidi

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of English Linguistics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDigital Communication and Language
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVariation (astronomy)PsychologyDescriptive statisticsSocial psychologyDemographyDevelopmental psychologyStatisticsSociologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study attempted to investigate the gender differences in the use of emojis on social media platforms. Furthermore, the differences in emojis preferences between men and women were investigated. The participants in this study included 10 of males and 10 of females. Data were collected through an adapted questionnaire from Persson (2019) consisting of 10 items. This study used a quantitative method; besides, the data were analyzed using descriptive statistical analyses. The results of this study revealed that there was no significant variation between men and women in the use of emojis. Moreover, the findings showed no significant variation among genders in their preferences of emojis.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.777
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.105
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.203 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of English LinguisticsSame topicDigital Communication and LanguageFrench-language works237,207